Metta World Peace: Should Suspensions Depend on How Badly a Player Is Hurt?

(Editor's note: Our Monday Wide Left podcast focuses on five different topics, one of which will be pulled out as our column topic. Listen to the show to hear Dan Levy, Nick Tarnowski and Josh Zerkle talk about Metta World Peace's pending suspension, Phil Humber's perfect game, Joe Paterno and the Beaver Stadium naming rights, the NHL playoffs and the upcoming NFL draft.)

Subscribe to the Wide Left podcast on iTunes here.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

What about an elbow to the head for an elbow to the head, a concussion for a concussion?

The more professional sports leagues try to crack down on cheap shots and curtail the occurrence of unnecessary injuries, the more the conversation of proper punishment seems to grow.  

On Sunday, Metta World Peace (formerly Ron Artest) celebrated a fast-break dunk by pounding his chest and elbowing Oklahoma City Thunder star James Harden in the head. Harden fell to the ground in a heap and did not return to the game. The Thunder reaction was rightly strong, causing World Peace to put up his dukes in case anyone else wanted to fight him.

He was promptly ejected from the game. 

It's worth nothing that World Peace took to Twitter following the game to apologize to Harden and claim it was an inadvertent elbow, but regardless, the NBA has to decide punishment for such a blatant act. This in turn leads to the question of how the league should handle this, or any, suspension.

There are a few factors that come into play with any suspendable act. First, was the play merely dangerous but accidental or was there a distinct intent to injure?

In other words, was it a good hard foul or a bad cheap shot?

Second, the past history of the player must be taken into account. First-time offenders are usually given the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, players who have a history of suspensions or rough play will likely have the proverbial book thrown at them. (Note: throwing an actual book at another player would probably lead to suspension.)

With the growing intensity of cheap-shot injuries—or at least more attention being paid to them in the safety-first culture of professional sports—the question in recent weeks has begun to shift from intent to result.  

Should players who injure opponents be suspended more than if the other player walks away unscathed? 

Marian Hossa of the Chicago Blackhawks was carted off the ice on a stretcher after a dirty hit from Phoenix's Raffi Torres. Torres received 25 games for the hit, the third-longest suspension in NHL history. Torres, as noted by the NHL, is a repeat offender.

The NHL routinely factors injuries into their suspensions. Other leagues seem to take a more unilateral approach to suspensions, keeping the injury to the player as context but not necessarily a deciding factor on the severity of punishment.

The MLS recently suspended New York Red Bulls defender Rafa Marquez for three games after tackling and kicking Shea Salinas of the San Jose Earthquakes. The play was incredibly dirty and three games were certainly warranted for the tackle which, inexplicably, did not even get a whistle during the match.

If you watch the play, it really looks like three games is a fair ban for Marquez. However, when you take into account his history of rough play in the MLS, many felt more of a message should have been sent. When you factor in Salinas had to leave the game with a broken clavicle that needed surgery, putting him out for 6-8 weeks, the three-game ban is somewhat laughable. 

Should the MLS have taken Salinas's injury into account when suspending Marquez?

It's not a cut-and-dried answer, really. Had Salinas not gotten hurt and stayed in the game, the suspension might seem harsh but fair. Had Salinas suffered a sprained shoulder and missed two games, the duration of the suspension would fit the duration of the injury. But 6-8 weeks is an eternity in MLS. Should the league take the eye-for-an-eye stance on broken bones?

James Neal and Arron Asham of the Pittsburgh Penguins were suspended during their NHL playoff series against the Philadelphia Flyers after illegal hits. Asham was booted for four games after cross-checking Brayden Schenn and punching him after he fell to the ice. Had Asham's stick hit Schenn in the face, or had Schenn missed time, the suspension would have been worse.

Neal was suspended in part for taking a run at Flyers center Claude Giroux, hitting him in the head and forcing him to the bench. Giroux continued to play in the game and didn't miss any time. But Giroux had missed time this season with a concussion, so any blow to the head will be far more magnified over the rest of his NHL career.

What if Neal's charge caused long-term damage to Giroux and took him out of the playoffs? What if it ended his career? 

Should Neal have known which player he was going after when he launched at his head? 

If a player did that to Sidney Crosby, who has missed significant time in his career with concussion issues, would the penalty be steeper than if it was a player who didn't have previous head injuries?

There is intent, and there is intent. If the length of a suspension is partly based on past disciplinary history, should injury history be a factor too?

That's not an easy one, either. What could be an innocuous check to one player could knock another player with past concussion issues out of a game. Is it fair to ask the offending players to know the injury history of who they are hitting? Or is it buyer beware? (Maybe checker beware in this case.)

If you've come looking for a unilateral answer, there isn't one. Some leagues seem to take injuries into account and some don't. The NFL has fined players for hits that weren't even illegal two or three years ago and consistently looks to discipline players for being unnecessarily rough in a game that is built on straddling the line of what roughness is or is not necessary.

It cannot be easy for any of the league disciplinarians. It really is a case-by-case basis. The prudent step for most leagues may be to immediately suspend players "indefinitely" to give them enough time to gather evidence and see how the injured player reacts. That said, in the case of Marquez, MLS knew Salinas was already destined for surgery when they announced a three-game ban.

In the case of World Peace, it might be prudent to suspend him for the rest of the regular season or maybe even the regular season and the playoffs. But if Harden comes back next game, is that too severe? If Harden is out for a long time or is never the same player again, is it too lenient?

One thing is certain: suspensions and fines need to serve as punishment as much as deterrent. Whether leagues factor injuries into suspensions or not, sending a message to the offending players—and the rest of the league—should always be part of the decision.